Worst team in the league - Are we "OK" with it?

[Jason14h]

Do we get to play ourselves !

[GullFoss]

Theyre on pace for 24 points give or take. That's really special. I think outside of the Ottawa senators /San Jose sharks first seasons as a franchise, it might be a record for the 80+ game seasons

[Calgary4LIfe]

I do think that the schedule has been very rough, but I also think the Flames came out of the gates playing very poorly.


They are playing better, but still not great. I expect them to dramatically increase their points percentage, but it is still likely going to be a very ugly season. Just not this ugly.


I do think that last season's start had greatly helped the Flames get on a roll, and this season's start going the other way is probably going to get the ball rolling the other way.

[Hackey]

Very exciting start to the season, but the Flames are good at screwing things up so I know better than to get excited just yet. A lot needs to go right this year and for the next few. Plus, you need ownership to get out of their own way to not screw it up as well. But so far, a lot of positives this year. Keep it up boys.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Theyre on pace for 24 points give or take. That's really special. I think outside of the Ottawa senators /San Jose sharks first seasons as a franchise, it might be a record for the 80+ game seasons

Washington Capitals, 1974–75, 21 points in 80 games.

However, it would be utterly foolish to project any team's 82-game pace from this small a sample. Doesn't anybody understand the concept of regression to the mean?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Washington Capitals, 1974–75, 21 points in 80 games.

However, it would be utterly foolish to project any team's 82-game pace from this small a sample. Doesn't anybody understand the concept of regression to the mean?

Do you think the Washington team was on pace for 0 points after 10 games and then regressed to the mean?

The idea of projecting a small sample size is wrong. But to assume it regresses to the mean assumes they're better than they're playing. That could be right, but it also could be wrong. It could very well be that the small sample size is projecting a point total that's too high!

[Badgers Nose]

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Do you think the Washington team was on pace for 0 points after 10 games and then regressed to the mean?

After 18 games, that Capitals team was 1–15–2 for a winning percentage of 0.111. They finished the season at 8–67–5 for .131. Even they were not able to maintain their early level of suckage.

The idea of projecting a small sample size is wrong. But to assume it regresses to the mean assumes they're better than they're playing. That could be right, but it also could be wrong. It could very well be that the small sample size is projecting a point total that's too high!

Only three teams in the history of the league have ever finished with a winning percentage as low as the Flames' is right now. I believe every team in the league has had a winning percentage that low over some particular 9-game stretch, including the Flames themselves. Sustaining that level of badness is hard.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

I love your crystal ball, mind lending it?

Suggesting Wolf will have better numbers when he isnt playing Vegas or Jets every game doesnt take a crystal ball its common sense

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

After 18 games, that Capitals team was 1–15–2 for a winning percentage of 0.111. They finished the season at 8–67–5 for .131. Even they were not able to maintain their early level of suckage.



Only three teams in the history of the league have ever finished with a winning percentage as low as the Flames' is right now. I believe every team in the league has had a winning percentage that low over some particular 9-game stretch, including the Flames themselves. Sustaining that level of badness is hard.

I mean, they don’t look better than their record indicates so far.

They suck. Farabee can’t even raise the puck.

Our only win is because of Skinner.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I would argue that they do look better. They are just having some serious hiccups with turnovers, poor positioning and the stupidest penalties.


It is what it is. I do hope that a couple of trades do happen before Christmas, however. I am not getting my hopes up with McKenna simply because the lottery isn't easy to win. Conroy needs balance here - you don't want to be complete trash, as this leads to a more difficult time turning things around (though not impossible, but I would rather not go that low). They need to be neck-in-neck with 2 other teams - San Jose, and apparently Boston. I think Tampa is of course going to turn things around and I would bet that they make the playoffs. Chicago I bet plummets at some point this season - their winning is unsustainable I feel. Ditto for Pittsburgh (though quite not to that level).


I do feel it is going to be a three horse race now for McKenna - Calgary, San Jose and Boston. It is early, so there are a few other teams that can quite easily simply drop down, but that's the early race anyway. I really didn't see Boston. I didn't have them making the playoffs of course, but I thought that they would have been in the 7-12 range this season. San Jose I thought would be in the bottom 3, along with Calgary and Chicago, and if Pittsburgh trades, Crosby early, then I would have figured Pittsburgh as well.


Just hoping for a top 3 pick this year. I think the season is likely gone now given the talent of this team, and how the defence is about to take another blow (I am trying to get mentally prepared for the 'this D-man sucks" and "Parekh is making dumb mistakes" - Calgary has one of the weakest D-corps in the league, and it is going to get much worse when Andersson leaves, and I think even his biggest detractors here will really start to miss him.


Just hope that Conroy finds that balance between keeping Calgary firmly as the McKenna favourite, but without being an absolute tire-fire. From that standpoint, I hope most of the kids stay on the Wranglers and just work on their games in a better environment. I would love to give Gridin a run at the calder next season, for instance. I can see both sides of the argument. I prefer to keep him in whatever environment will be best for his development (as well as others).

[The Cobra]

There is zero chance that Calgary is as bad as their record indicates.

This isn’t simply one of the worse teams teams ever.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There is zero chance that Calgary is as bad as their record indicates.

This isn’t simply one of the worse teams teams ever.

Agreed. This team got 96 points last year with almost the same personnel. The only players who played more than half the games last year who are no longer on the team are Rooney and Miromanov, and removing them did not make the team any worse.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Gross

Haha very.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by BigThief

100% okay with it, we need to play Miromanov every game

That’s where I draw the line

[Burning Beard]

Yeah people harp on Dino for bringing up the schedule but if they play the way they have been the last few games (especially with Wolf) against a Chicago or Columbus they are probably coming out with wins. The gnarly schedule has been a blessing in disguise for the Flames draft pick this year.

[Bingo]

A lot of hockey to be played.

The Flames, for many of us, were not a 96 point team last year. They over achieved and out worked most teams for the first 2/3 of the season.

I think we are seeing that level out.

But I don't think they are 3 points in 9 games bad either.

But if you look at last year on October 25th the worst 4 teams were SJ, Philly, Nashville and Chicago. When the season ended the same four teams were at the bottom (slightly different order).

It's teams 5 (Montreal) and 7 (Edmonton) that turned it around and made the playoffs.

I don't know if the Flames have the horses to do the same.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I would argue that they do look better. They are just having some serious hiccups with turnovers, poor positioning and the stupidest penalties.

I agree that the Flames look better than their record suggests. At the same time they're playing a hard brand of hockey, and it gets even harder when you're not winning. The effort is there, but I don't expect them to push as hard whenever the playoffs get out of reach.

PS: As a fan that has been asking for a rebuild over the last 2 years, I couldn't be happier that the wheels fell off when they did. Hopefully they will become a playoff team in 3 years with Wolf + Parekh + 26' 1st as the stars to lead this team.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Theyre on pace for 24 points give or take. That's really special. I think outside of the Ottawa senators /San Jose sharks first seasons as a franchise, it might be a record for the 80+ game seasons

Worst Calgary Flames team ever got to 67 points in 82 games in 97/98. Currently on pace for 27 points.

Lowest scoring Flames team ever got to 186 goal in 02/03. Right now on pace for 145. Worst ever in NHL history in 150 over 82 games.

Would need to play at a 45% win rate to beat 67 points. Right now at 16.7%.

Lets see if they can beat it!! Go Flames!!

[Badgers Nose]

You guys are analyzing ####.

Debating whether a dog, coyote, cougar or bear made it.

But to the rest of us, it’s just a pile of ####.

Flames are #### this year, and Conroy better make sure it counts.